"Maxine Waters, one of our esteemed representatives from California, said recently that the sequester would cause 170 million jobs to be lost."

Her figure is remarkably accurate if you count the losses from all 57 states.

You're on a roll, JC. I've noticed since the sequester showdown that the stock market has gone up and Obama's approval ratings have gone down. THIS is why Americans voted to keep the GOP in control of the House.

Maxine Waters is a lame brain of the highest order... and then there's Nancy Pelosi. What a pair... sheesh!

"THIS is why Americans voted to keep the GOP in control of the House."

You mean to keep the rich swimming in wealth while everyone else is struggling?

Raj, you need to stop believing everything you're being spoon-fed at MSNBC and live in the real world.

You mean to keep the rich swimming in wealth while everyone else is struggling?


Unfortunately, those who are viewed by Obama as "rich" are not swimming in wealth.

Raj wrote: You mean to keep the rich swimming in wealth while everyone else is struggling?

Indy: Keep in mind that the GOP ideology is that ‘market fundamentalism’ is the key to our future.

We simply don’t need any government to do anything and just watch businessman go go go . . .

As it turns out, however, this approach is naive and damaging as we saw during the 60s environmental movement where businesses, addressed by Milton Friedman of all people (conservative ‘free market’ economist in the ‘Chicago School’ if you will), created what he termed ‘market failure’ where businesses pollute apart from where their customers reside to increase profits while the customer remains ignorant to the issue.

We as citizens decided, interestingly under Nixon (Republican President), to address the clean air and water acts that ‘regulate’ businesses such that they can’t increase profits by polluting the environment.

And yet today, conservatives in congress keep arguing that protecting the environment and regulations ‘hurt jobs’ . . . and indeed they do. These companies could expand their businesses but at the expense of ‘dirty air and dirty water’.

So you can see that the House made up of market fundamentalist protected by gerrymandered districts know who their ‘masters are’, those being the business funded lobbyist that ‘direct’ their positions and actions at the expense of the ‘we the people’.

In any event, in CA, income is concentrating due to the ‘wealthy advantages’ and the income statistics kept by the state’s Franchise Tax Board support this:

For 2007:

- the top 1% of income earners take about 25% of all adjusted gross income
- the bottom 50% of all income earners take around 10% of all AGI
- the 4 people out of 1,000 earn $1 million or more

For 1996:

- the top 1% of income earners take about 17% of all AGI
- the bottom 50% of all income earners take around 12.7% of AGI
- 1 person in 1,000 earn $1 million or more

There are more statistics to think about but the trending is that the top 1% gained roughly 47% more income while the bottom 50% lost 21%.

The data from FTB lags the current date due to data accumulation but you can see the trend.

So we’ve got tough choices ahead as to what we legislate and for whom it benefits.

We as citizens have to realize that we too ‘demand’ services from government that are not ‘free’ and thus we should be asking why we don’t have a rational tax code based on ‘citizen’ demands and relate that to affordability of our own paychecks in addition to using a proportional tax code that address the wealth advantages I’ll list in the next post.

Income Advantage: People with high incomes benefit from several factors including:

a. The low capital gains rate that has them paying a rate that is not consistent with their use of tax funded infrastructure including our military, courts, and transportation infrastructure.

b. They also benefit since their ‘discretionary’ incomes are so much higher they can invest more while most Americans exist ‘check to check’.

c. They can take advantage of ‘large’ business deals especially in off shoring where huge income gains result from the large ‘wage differentials’ in nations with low wage rates.

d. Having the ability to influence our tax laws (loopholes) provided high income earners access to our leaders where folks like me get to speak to a ‘college intern’ on the phone when I call them.

LTE writer wrote: Maxine Waters, one of our esteemed representatives from California, said recently that the sequester would cause 170 million jobs to be lost.

Indy: I understand the ‘political entertainment’ that this writer is trying to draw our attention to but it really solves nothing and is of little use as but another ‘partisan jab’ that feeds the conservative ‘base’ that likes such quick quip nonsense. Just look at the conservative posts in this thread . . .

If you want further entertainment, could check the internet for George W Bush speeches but why waste your time . . .

The fact that the Signal waste newspaper on such a LTE with the all problems we face is testament that the media is often more interested in the political nonsense that defies their ‘editorials’ that say otherwise.

In any event, the new age of 15 minute news cycles based on ‘infotainment’, well, look around . . . how’s that working out . . .

Some local ‘market fundamentalism’ going on here in the SCV.

CLWA attempting to buy out VWC then raise the rates of those customers to pay for new infrastructure and additional supply for future development.
They are eliminating competition and charging rate payers in an attempt to expand their bottom line as a for profit company. Expand your bottom line with your own dime. A risk you are voluntarily undertaking but do not want to pay for with money from your own pocket. No risk, only reward. We should all have it so good.

"Keep in mind that the GOP ideology is that ‘market fundamentalism’ is the key to our future. We simply don’t need any government to do anything and just watch businessman go go go . ."

Indy,

You've done a fantastic job at destroying that argument. Bravo!

Unfortunately, NO ONE in the GOP holds the view that you have assigned to them. Not one.

Name a single Republican in Washington or Sacramento who believes that the government should play no role in the economy. If it's part of the "GOP ideology" like you stated, it should be a pretty easy task, right?

Let's hear it, Indy. One example.

You've shown us you can use a dictionary through your Obama/socialist posts, so I'm confident you understand what the words "don’t need any government to do anything" means.

Follow your own standard and back it up with links or sources. Or admit that it was a straw man and walk it back.

WIndy: "We simply don’t need any government to do anything and just watch businessman go go go . . ."

Once again WIndy spews pure garbage... Johnny Cash, has it right while WIndy loses another debate.

Indy's argument is an old one, summarized here:

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Here's some more "market fundamentalism" addressing similar assumptions from Milton Friedman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQLBitV69Cc&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

Another apropos "market fundamentalist" quote:

“It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expence, either by sumptuary laws, or by prohibiting the importation of foreign luxuries. They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expence, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will.” — Adam Smith

More Milton Friedman on government "control" of market economies to achieve social objectives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p31-xQ2Rrz4

JohnnyCash wrote: Follow your own standard and back it up with links or sources. Or admit that it was a straw man and walk it back.

Indy: To demonstrate the point, can you please:

- List one regulation that is being scruntized by the GOP that embeds itself in the political slogan ‘regulations are bad’, a slogan that is recited by republican after republican

- List one ‘loophole that conservatives keep suggestions will close the budget gap without raising taxes

JohnnyCash,

You know, I’ll make it easy for you.

Please show me the work being done by your congressman or two legislators that are addressing any regulation or loophole at their sites:

Federal:

McKeon: http://mckeon.house.gov/

State:

Knight: http://cssrc.us/web/21/

Wilk: http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/AD38/

Since we get so much discussion on the issues of regulations and loopholes during the elections, I’m sure these folks have ‘jumped right in’ and have taken time to tell, their constituents, what they are doing to fulfill their positions.

Time starts: Now

WIndy, yu didn't show one thing, nor did you answer any of his questions. All you did was ask questions.

An astute observation, philellis.

It's a misdirection designed to lure JC into defending 3rd parties rather than answering the direct inquiry.

Gee, didn’t see any ‘?’ marks in JCs comments . . .

Anyway, same challenge to all the conservatives posting here . . . what are your republican representatives doing to address their repetitive talking points for regulations and loopholes.

As far as my comments are concerned, the context was known to this poster.

He chooses to try to ‘walk back’ the constant distortion of what socialism is versus what conservatives here say it is.

In any event, word games are great for quick quips but please, show us the work that McKeon, Knight and Wilk are doing to support their campaign pledges to address regulations that ‘hurt business’ and close the ‘loopholes’ that will not require more taxes.

And the bonus question is what role does government have in regulating business?

I'll generously assist you by avoiding your semantic jousting and diversion, Indy. The JC inquiry was:

"Name a single Republican in Washington or Sacramento who believes that the government should play no role in the economy. If it's part of the "GOP ideology" like you stated, it should be a pretty easy task, right?

Let's hear it, Indy. One example."

That's what you're deflecting from, i.e. JC calling out your straw man.

Address what JC directly requested you provide rather than imaginary "conservative" set pieces playing out in your head.

"- List one regulation that is being scruntized by the GOP that embeds itself in the political slogan ‘regulations are bad’, a slogan that is recited by republican after republican"

Only Indy has the superhuman ability to balance a weak straw man on top of another straw man. I don't even think those Cirque du Soleil acrobats can do that!

Oh, brother.... Indy, identify one Republican in Washington or Sacramento who has stated that all "regulations are bad."

Here's a question mark for ya'.

?

No one with half a brain thinks that "regulations are bad." Do we think there are too many regulations now? Yes. But what conservative seeks to rid the government's ability to regulate the manufacture of patented goods from someone else? Who out there wants to stop the government from regulating commerce by enforcing laws about fraud or theft? Contracts, trademarks, litigation, etc.,..there is a role for the government in a free enterprise economy.

There is no such thing as Free markets, Free economies, or Free anything. We are free to compromise and (if we don't) we are free to fail.

Government is in place to try to ensure freedom to the individual and to protect said individual against amassed wealth encroaching on the individual's freedom to have a life free of garbage and BS that amassed wealth leaves in its wake. If corporations are people how do we lynch them?

If you want to see the effects of lax regulation look no further than the toxic waste dump between the Bonelli Racetrack and Placerita Canyon. Why can't we make the war profiteers who spoiled the place fix it? Selective deregulation that puts the needs of the few (shareholders) ahead of the needs of the many has left us with poisoned dirt and water.

Indy's response = crickets.

To be fair, though, he does make a better argument this way.

As you can see, not one conservative poster can list one specific regulaion other than generalities that their own repbulcians leaders never discuss.

And why asked to support their own republican politicians that represent us here with anything they are doing to address the reguations that assert is costing us jobs, well, nothing . . .

This is why the RNC is so good at positioning it's slogans so their followers simply can't answer any request for specifics.

Generalities are great like "But what conservative seeks to rid the government's ability to regulate the manufacture of patented goods from someone else? Who out there wants to stop the government from regulating commerce by enforcing laws about fraud or theft? Contracts, trademarks, litigation, etc.,..there is a role for the government in a free enterprise economy."

But that's not what republican leaders are presenting to the public with their shallow based slogans that appear to just authorize them to remove regulations in the 'back room' without public comment.

Perhaps these conservatives here will support their leaders or perhaps not.

Let's wait and see . . .

Noting the post above, this admonition was retrospective and prescient:

"Address what JC directly requested you provide rather than imaginary "conservative" set pieces playing out in your head."

For those of you that are new, this is classic Indy shuck and jive. Seriously, don't waste your time, you never get it back.

Nicely done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgRRfWx71fo&feature=youtu.be